To submissive for citizenship.

[Keeper_of_Fi]

A french court ruled that a muslim woman was too submissive and that her radical practice of Islam was not compatible with "modern French values".

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/11/europe/OUKWD-UK-FRANCE-MUSLIM.php

What do you think? Can someone be too submissive?

 

[FeatherNails]

A french court ruled that a muslim woman was too submissive and that her radical practice of Islam was not compatible with "modern French values".

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/11/europe/OUKWD-UK-FRANCE-MUSLIM.php

What do you think? Can someone be too submissive?

I don't believe this is comparable to the submissiveness in the sexual context we discuss here.

 

[nh23]

I don't believe this is comparable to the submissiveness in the sexual context we discuss here.

*nods* Either do I. Muslim women are not only submissive to their husbands, they are expected to be submissive to all males (family members etc) Depending on where they are from most of them don't get a choice but to be submissive. They have no rights even if they wanted them..

ETA: Although I don't think it's right that they are not allowing her in because of her religion/culture.

 

[Keeper_of_Fi]

Sure it does. The focus and reason for the submission is not relevant. Whether it is for sexual or religious reasons, submission is in the person.

 

[FeatherNails]

*nods* Either do I. Muslim women are not only submissive to their husbands, they are expected to be submissive to all males (family members etc) Depending on where they are from most of them don't get a choice but to be submissive. They have no rights even if they wanted them..

exactly. A submissive has a choice. She doesn't.
In another example...
if I like pain, I may choose to let my partner hit me.
However, regardless of whether or not I like pain, its wrong for him to hit me if I can't say 'no'

 

[FeatherNails]

Sure it does. The focus and reason for the submission is not relevant. Whether it is for sexual or religious reasons, submission is in the person.

not always.
People are often submissive if they live in fear or are just plain old beaten down.

You won't see many people more submissive than an abused woman.

 

[nh23]

exactly. A submissive has a choice. She doesn't.
In another example...
if I like pain, I may choose to let my partner hit me.
However, regardless of whether or not I like pain, its wrong for him to hit me if I can't say 'no'

*nods* Unless you take it to "consensual slavery" which is a whole nother ballgame. If Master chooses to give me pain I'm not allowed to say no. Difference is I entered into this relationship knowing that. So I choose this. It's what makes me happy. The majority of muslim women don't get that choice.

 

[FeatherNails]

*nods* Unless you take it to "consensual slavery" which is a whole nother ballgame. If Master chooses to give me pain I'm not allowed to say no. Difference is I entered into this relationship knowing that. So I choose this. It's what makes me happy. The majority of muslim women don't get that choice.

exactly.
Big difference between giving yourself over and being taken.
The same difference between sex and rape.

 

[subbie_333]

A french court ruled that a muslim woman was too submissive and that her radical practice of Islam was not compatible with "modern French values".

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/11/europe/OUKWD-UK-FRANCE-MUSLIM.php

What do you think? Can someone be too submissive?

Oh wow, that was a fun article to read. So many things to pick apart. While FeatherNails first post is probably right, we can always pervert things to fit us (we are good at that).

Article: "She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes"

um, from what i understand, she is practicing the traditional role in her religion. So, her practice is not radical, but, the traditional practice of her religion is radical in France. Considering the Old Testament's view of a wife submitting to her husband, and, i don't think the U.S. conservative right would argue that is a reason to revoke their U.S. citizenship for violating the equal rights amendment. They are more afraid of their fetishes being revealed (see, i brought it back to BDSM).

Article: "speaks good French"

Good English

Article: The woman's application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on grounds of "insufficient assimilation"

Resistance is futile. Besides, if she stays home and never goes out (therefore not assimilating into society), how would she be dragging down the great nation of France?

Article: "she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society,"

See?

Article: "prompted by a court annulment of the marriage of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not a virgin as she had claimed to be."

He should've blown himself up - 72 virgins just waiting for him there. Me, i would rather have 72 Dominatrices, but, that's just me

Article: "She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind,"

Seems that some of the folks on this site like and want that sorta thing, but, sadly now will never be French citizens

Article: "Le Monde quoted Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, as saying it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship. "If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French," Lochak said."

Huh? Damn, excluding a lot of women from this site again. But, on the bright side, that doesn't exclude us submissive guys!

What do you think? Can someone be too submissive?

The great thinkers of France say "yes". In the BDSM lifestyle, probably, especially if they don't use their safeword when they are getting injured (oh shit, this will get some panties in a wad)

 

[ownedsubgal]

I don't believe this is comparable to the submissiveness in the sexual context we discuss here.

not every submissive who posts here is submissive in a sexual context only, or makes the conscious choice to submit. some of us have values and beliefs regarding relationships and male/female roles very similar to those found in some orthodox religious groups, islam included.

that's just despicable what the french government is doing to that woman and her family. she has a french husband, children, a whole life in france, just because she does not share the majority views of that country, she is somehow undeserving of being granted citizenship?? reading stuff like this is majorly depressing, just reminds me just how far out we've gone in western society, how the values and beliefs so many of us hold dear are becoming less and less accepted, more and more reviled, until everyone who doesn't believe in gender equality, independence, etc. just dies out or escapes to some third world country. *smh*

so much for that dream of visiting france....

 

[Yasashii_Kaze]

In the BDSM lifestyle, probably, especially if they don't use their safeword when they are getting injured (oh shit, this will get some panties in a wad)

Submissiveness should not be confused with a lack of common sense.

 

[cherokee_dove]

Two different items in the link are questionable.

The first one:

"She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," said a ruling by the Council of State handed down last month and sent to Reuters on Friday to confirm a report in Le Monde.

By whos idea of radical? Hers or the French government? She is just going by the way she was raised and taught to be. Thats not wrong or radical, to her. Its just radical to the French government.

The second being this:

"She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind," Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave wrote.

If she finds it normal, and does not wish to challenge those ways; by what rights does the French government have to tell her she has to?

If she is happy being a submissive to her husband (of French nationality) and to the other male relatives; then shouldn't she be allowed her rights to be submissive to them? Unless the age factor is involved, which the article doesnt say anything about.

She has French children by the same French husband, and is married to him. She is just living in the way she is most comfortable with.

It seems the French government are the ones who are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being a happy submissive; and not wanting to change.

Maybe if they got to feel the sting of a paddle once in a while, they might learn to understand one of the reasons some of us like being submissive!

She ought to be allowed her citizenship.

 

[EmpressFi]

I agree, and not just because Keeper's my Master, that submission isnt always sexual. My submission extends beyond the bedroom, and I find it disturbing that while yes, many men may abuse their women into submission, certainly not ALL of them do it. She may choose to continue to submission and if she does, who are we, or the French government for that matter, to tell her she should live differently.

This is her religion, her culture, her core beliefs. Not to be too cliche, but each part of her submission ~ the clothes, her demeanor, etc, each one is a thread that builds who she is. What gives anyone the right to tell her that unless she gives them up, assimilates, she cant be a citizen?

 

[YourCaptor]

What, this is ridiculous.

I don't know french law, but they are generally about personal freedoms and such... right? At least liberty thats for sure.

I'm concerned about french values now.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Sure it does. The focus and reason for the submission is not relevant. Whether it is for sexual or religious reasons, submission is in the person.

Not sure I agree. If someone is forced to appear and act submissive out of fear, cultural musts, religion etc., it doesn't necessarily mean the person is submissive in their heart and soul. For example, some one holds a gun to your head, most people will choose to appear to submit rather than be shot...doesn't mean they are going to remain so if an opportunity presents itself to change the circumstances, and they have the courage to go for it....thus it is not in the person, but is a way to minimise personal risk. There are many groups of Muslim women speaking out against the reality of the more oppressed Muslim women, many again who admit that who they show to the world is not who they are behind closed doors with a husband or family who no longer believe they should have to live in the manner which has been dictated. My experience living in a highly Muslim neighbourhood has been that many Muslim women are not as submissive as the West likes to portray them....many act no different than the rest of us, even though they may dress differently and have a different religion.


I would suggest this ruling in France was a way around refusing someone perhaps suspected of or a likely tool of terrorism from entering the country and being a risk. They may not be able to prove anything, but may suspect it is a real risk. The US does it every day, even with Westerners just wanting to vacation there, so not that outrageous in that context, just not as common in Europe. No doubt, the recent court case in the UK would also have given some foundation to considering it from a terrorist angle.

Catalina

 

[FeatherNails]

What gives anyone the right to tell her that unless she gives them up, assimilates, she cant be a citizen?

actually, thats specifically the point of the whole process.
No country allows just anyone to become a citizen.
I'm not saying that France is right in denying her citizenship, but I am saying that they may be taking this as an opportunity to say NO to a culture that treats women like property. They might be saying NO to a culture where women are killed for being raped. They might be saying NO to a culture where women are submissive because they have no other choice and no way out. Its been said before that women are the niggers of the world, and the Islamic world exemplifies that. Maybe France is saying NO MORE.

If they aren't saying these things, then they should be.
And I give not one care that this isn't an open-minded, multi-cultural stance. Somewhere you draw a line.

Finally, if there is any place a government should and can make these statements, its with its own people and who it allows as a citizen of its country.
Do YOU have to let just anyone into your house? Your family?

 

[kinkyknickers]

I think stating that a persons submissiveness is forced on them because they live in a certain culture, which we don't fully understand, is very misguided and could be quite offensive to the person in question.
A person's lifestyle is sacred to the individual and may or may not be their own choice. Plenty of people need to be submissive to function at their full potential.
Just because Western society generally demonises the muslim faith, doesn't make it wrong, just different. It doesn't make it right either, once agian, it's down to the individual.

Having said that, it's down to the country as to whom they choose to let in. It may seem unfair, but if you don't like a country's rules, then it might be wise to look elsewhere. Everybody has to make sacrifices when they emigrate to a different country, be it a change of language or culture. I suppose submissiveness falls under the French banner of "cultures we don't approve of".

Ce la Vie, KK.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think stating that a persons submissiveness is forced on them because they live in a certain culture, which we don't fully understand, is very misguided and could be quite offensive to the person in question.

True, and in my post I was not implying all are forced, but acknowledge some are forced through their own admission, some choose some elements, some all. I also acknowledge that there are many Muslims who say it has nothing to do with their culture or religion and is more prevalent in factions which choose to interpret the words of the Koran to cover their own desire to impose a multitude of restrictions on women. Similarly in the West, particularly the US, there are Christian based factions which choose to also interpret the Bible to suit their desire to oppress and control women and children....some who are in those churches shoose willingly to c omply, some do so out of fear.

Catalina

 

[WriterDom]

France would die to have Mexicans on their border. Good Catholics who don't go to heaven for killing women and children.

 

[jockdom]

France would die to have Mexicans on their border. Good Catholics who don't go to heaven for killing women and children.

A lot of these asylum seekers come from former french colonies, you reap what you sow. But personaly I find the burkka unsuitable for holding down public sector jobs. We recently had a case were a classroom assistant got fired for insisting she'd wear her burkka in class. Difficult subject but i think in french law ,relligion and the state/education etc are seperate.

 

[EmpressFi]

actually, thats specifically the point of the whole process.
No country allows just anyone to become a citizen.
I'm not saying that France is right in denying her citizenship, but I am saying that they may be taking this as an opportunity to say NO to a culture that treats women like property. They might be saying NO to a culture where women are killed for being raped. They might be saying NO to a culture where women are submissive because they have no other choice and no way out. Its been said before that women are the niggers of the world, and the Islamic world exemplifies that. Maybe France is saying NO MORE.

If they aren't saying these things, then they should be.
And I give not one care that this isn't an open-minded, multi-cultural stance. Somewhere you draw a line.

Finally, if there is any place a government should and can make these statements, its with its own people and who it allows as a citizen of its country.
Do YOU have to let just anyone into your house? Your family?

I guess I was comparing it more to becoming a US citizen. Nothing in the requirements say you must assimilate into our culture other than "The ability to read, write and speak ordinary English unless they are physically unable to do so due to a disability such as being blind or deaf, or suffer from a developmental disability or mental impairment."

The only requirements are:
1 - Be a lawful permanent resident, i.e. green card (if you serve in the military you may be exempt and become a naturalized citizen)
2 - Continuous residence for 5 years
3 - Physical residence in the same state where the petition is filed for 3 months
4 - Physical presence within the U.S. for a total of at least one half of the period of required continuous residence. That is, two and a half years for most applicants and one and a half years for spouses of U.S. Citizens.
5 - The ability to read and write English (see above)
6 - Basic understanding of our history and government
7 - Good moral character and an affinity for the principles of the U.S. Constitution. (this is the only one where I thought, hmmm awfully subjective.. but the constitution has freedom of religion... )
8 - Continuous residence (but not necessarily physical presence) in the U.S. from the date of filing the naturalization application up to the date of being sworn in as a citizen.
9 - The person who files, must be at least 18 years old at the time of filing.
(Source of above list)

Nothing in there, that I see, says you must give up the culture and/or beliefs in order to become a citizen. Again, we're making assumptions that she FEELS brow-beaten and abused. Maybe, just maybe, she glows in the joy of how she lives just as much as we do. Maybe not, but maybe to her, it's as much as what defines her as my submission and polyamory defines me. Maybe it's just one facet of who she is and not this dark and ugly thing we automatically assume Muslim culture to be.

 

[myinnerslut]

im not sure what is anything correlates to the us "freedom of religion" in france. i know they werent very accepting of jews (when i went i was advised to not wear a star of david at any point during my trip)

 

[Netzach]

This is very scary policy, actually.

Basically it says "you're too freaky you're out."

How would people feel if this woman was an asylum seeker who had to wear a burqua, an Afghani woman, who was very traditional but very scared for her life? Not someone who seems to be fairly well adjusted within her norms, but still - someone who's "not assimilated" and can be ruled "not assimilateable"

Would it still be fine to have the French say "no we will never make you properly French - sorry."

They never left their colonial racist BS behind for a minute. These people are never on my "enlightened" list for a minute, they have a lot of gall talking about American racism. There's a lot of backyard cleanup to happen yet.

One of those moments I am extremely proud to live where I live. The theories are spot on if the application has historically sucked ass.

 

[Netzach]

France would die to have Mexicans on their border. Good Catholics who don't go to heaven for killing women and children.

They moved their border into Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Senegal - uh, hello.

 

[Netzach]

actually, thats specifically the point of the whole process.
No country allows just anyone to become a citizen.
I'm not saying that France is right in denying her citizenship, but I am saying that they may be taking this as an opportunity to say NO to a culture that treats women like property. They might be saying NO to a culture where women are killed for being raped. They might be saying NO to a culture where women are submissive because they have no other choice and no way out. Its been said before that women are the niggers of the world, and the Islamic world exemplifies that. Maybe France is saying NO MORE.

If they aren't saying these things, then they should be.
And I give not one care that this isn't an open-minded, multi-cultural stance. Somewhere you draw a line.

Finally, if there is any place a government should and can make these statements, its with its own people and who it allows as a citizen of its country.
Do YOU have to let just anyone into your house? Your family?

You know how you say no to that practice?

You say no to the men imposing it in the streets.
You say yes to the moderate muslims who find it stupid.
You say NO to the conditions that allow religious extremism to have appeal as a globe (employment rate of 10-20 percent if you leave out opium farming and being a radicalized imam)

The French Gov't - by making this woman a symbol of all they think wrong rather than a human being are basically no more liberating to her than they think her mindset already has to be.

Has anyone ever asked her anything about it?